Disposed

Singana Nagamuni Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Dec 2009WP/23445/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Collector to consider petitioners' claims for additional market value and interest from the date of application, relying on its prior judgment W.A. Nos. 1765 and 1785 of 2008. The writ petition was disposed of within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to consider petitioners' interest claims in light of prior court judgment within six weeks. Gramam is disposed of.

Singana Nagamuni Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.23445 OF 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Singana Nagamuni Reddy, S/o. Gurivi Reddy and others

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Department of Irrigation and CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.23445 OF 2009

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Heard the counsel.

¶17

2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 02.11.2009.

¶18

3. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the

¶19

Award passed by respondent No.3 insofar as to the extent of restricting

¶20

statutory benefits such as additional market value, interest etc., from the date of application submitted by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 15.04.2008 to the date of Award i.e., 20.09.2008 vide Award No.32/08, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unconstitutional and ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and consequently to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant compensation of the additional market value, statutory benefits and interest respectively from the date of taking possession/passing award i.e., Award Nos.31/99 and 32/99 were passed by respondent No.3 on 17.01.1999 and 18.01.1999 respectively till the date of payment of compensation payable under the Award pursuant to the re-determination of compensation and pass such other suitable orders.

¶21

4. A strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.1765 and 1785 of 2008, dated 12.02.2009.

¶22

5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the order made in W.A.Nos.1765 and 1785 of 2008 by this Court, the same is not being followed in awarding of the interest and computing of the interest in relation to the period to which the interest to be granted.

¶23

6. It is no doubt stated that as against the order made in W.A.Nos.1765 and 1785 of 2008, Special Leave Petition had been preferred and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court and a review had also been filed by the State.

¶24

7. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition be disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the stand taken by the petitioners in relation to the interest specified supra in the light of the Judgment made by this Court in W.A.Nos.1765 and 1785 of 2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

¶26

direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J

¶28

December 22, 2009

¶29

Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days B/O.MD

Singana Nagamuni Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singana Nagamuni Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayathri Estates, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Telugu One Foundation, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mahant Kamleshdasji Maharaj,S/o. Sri Kameshwar Vs The State of A.P

M/s. Ysr Constructions Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

D. Balakrishna, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

M.C. Anki Reddy, Vs The Engineer - in - Chief